UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[SilverFox2]

I've resisted the reply, but here we go. This is not a criminal process, court or allegation.

Is it possible that a criminal body (say the Serious Fraud Office in the UK) could investigate the club for fraudulent accounts? Yes - its possible but unlikely.

But that is a million miles from where we are now. Right now, all this is a sporting body's disciplinary finding being challenged in the sporting arbitrator. That's it.

UEFA are seemingly making some strong allegations and I do think CAS will think twice about whether they have the evidence to support UEFA's finding but criminality is just not in the mix right now and should be ignored.

Forget the tax part. It's a red herring.

Can UEFA extend any worded rule to include its claimed but omitted intent?

 

[slbsn]

Can UEFA extend any worded rule to include its claimed but omitted intent?

Don't understand the question. CAS will take a view of what a rule means having heard submissions as to its meaning from UEFA and City and having considered Swiss law and precedent cases.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

But in response to your response not saying CAS are pursuing us but they can in theory up hold the UEFA decision yet I cannot see how without a criminal investigation into us.

Would it not be a criminal offense to say to Auditors a governing body the tax man another set of auditors and sports tribunal that you received money from x when you actually received it from y to do so for financial gain. Also what about getting round or not declaring related party transactions. Given that that seems to follow from the alleged inflation and miss declaring of where fund have come from

If I say I've received £50m income when I've only received £5m, then I've overstated my income. There have been a number of high-profile cases (the former Spurs sponsor Autonomy, for one) where executives have been accused over inflating revenues. An example is where a company rolls up the annual revenues for licensing software over a 3-year contract into a single year. Or where a car dealership records fictitious sales, in order to claim a bonus from the manufacturer. Both of those may well be classed as false accounting and could well be criminal.

Our case is a little more nuanced than that. The claim appears to be that Etihad's sponsorship was significantly topped-up to the contracted amount by ADUG. In on sense that doesn't matter, as projectriver has said. If we have a contract with Etihad that they will pay us £50m a year, and they do pay us £50m a year, that's not an issue. If there's separate revenue streams, with a remittance from Etihad for £5m and a separate one from ADUG for £45m, then there would be a possible case for overstating revenue. But I'd be amazed if that's what happened and the emails made it clear that the remittances had to be seen to come from Etihad and the other sponsors, rather than in a separate lump-sum.

Where projectriver and I disagree is that even if Etihad was seen to fulfil its contract with us in full, UEFA could still have a case if they could show that this revenue was partly made up of what they would class as disguised owner investment. But that's just a breach of UEFA's FFP rules, not a criminal offence.

Did not say we are liable for tax I was saying the tax man has probably benefitted since we are alleged to have hidden owner investment through inflated sponsorship leading to a few years profits and few years lower losses

Think about it. If we'd artificially inflated revenues, profits would have been higher than they should have been and losses lower. Therefore if we had been in a position to pay tax, we'd be paying more than we should, not less.

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

We are not really sure what UEFA are accusing us of but it looks more than breaching FFP. It seems they’ve are accusing us of inflating sponsorship deals, and not declaring related party transactions, basically falsifying account. The tax man would not like either of these

If they were accusing us of a criminal offence then they would have an obligation under law to report the matter to the appropriate authorities.
Also, business investment is not a crime and any level of enquiry would reveal that HMRC care not one single jot if the foreign owner of a UK based business pumps his legitimately earned money into his investment - indeed they would encourage such behaviour if they had a mechanism to do so because it does nothing more than increase the tax take to the exchequer.

 

[SilverFox2]

Don't understand the question. CAS will take a view of what a rule means having heard submissions as to its meaning from UEFA and City and having considered Swiss law and precedent cases.

Sorry PR I meant to ask if the written rule by UEFA contains loopholes ie does not fully close off its intended purpose can accountants exploit this badly written rule ?

 

[dadnlad]

Sorry PR I meant to ask if the written rule by UEFA contains loopholes ie does not fully close off its intended purpose can accountants exploit this badly written rule ?

are you implying Dominic Cummings has wrote them

 

[WRicko]

Think about it. If we'd artificially inflated revenues, profits would have been higher than they should have been and losses lower. Therefore if we had been in a position to pay tax, we'd be paying more than we should, not less.

I never said we paid less in fact I have said the opposite so why are you quoting my words back to me in order to disagree with me when we both agree?

 

[WRicko]

I've resisted the reply, but here we go. This is not a criminal process, court or allegation.

Is it possible that a criminal body (say the Serious Fraud Office in the UK) could investigate the club for fraudulent accounts? Yes - its possible but unlikely.

But that is a million miles from where we are now. Right now, all this is a sporting body's disciplinary finding being challenged in the sporting arbitrator. That's it.

UEFA are seemingly making some strong allegations and I do think CAS will think twice about whether they have the evidence to support UEFA's finding but criminality is just not in the mix right now and should be ignored.

Forget the tax part. It's a red herring.

Never said this was a criminal court I wish people would stop reading things into what people say and only assume people are saying whats actually written

 

[slbsn]

Never said this was a criminal court I wish people would stop reading things into what people say and only assume people are saying whats actually written

Give it a rest.

Firstly, you missed thanking me for taking the time to reply to your barely coherent questions. People (including me) have taken the time to answer to try and capture the full scope of your potential question and then you have a moan about some nonsense.

I never wrote you said this was a criminal court. But if it isn't (and it obviously isn't) how could any of these matters be considered in a criminal context. That's rhetorical. Don't bother replying.

 

[slbsn]

Sorry PR I meant to ask if the written rule by UEFA contains loopholes ie does not fully close off its intended purpose can accountants exploit this badly written rule ?

They can try. Then UEFA can say that isn't the way Rule xxx works and CAS will decide whose case they prefer. Happens a lot in CAS cases that the sides have a different interpretation of a given rule. UEFA are usually found to be right on those!